The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today ordered a full-court "en banc" hearing of Arizona's voter-approved law that denies bail to undocumented immigrants accused of serious crimes.

Since the challenge to the 2006 law appeared settled after a Ninth Circuit 2-1 ruling in June, the new order is a good start to the new year for the plaintiffs of the lawsuit -- and likely trouble for the law.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Bill Montgomery didn't return requests for comment on the order.

Riding a crest of anti-immigrant sentiment in 2006, the initiative denying bail to suspected immigrant-criminals passed 78-22, spearhead by former State Senator Russell Pearce and former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

How times have changed: Pearce was recalled, Thomas lost the 2010 race for Attorney General to Tom Horne, then got disbarred. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer got re-elected after signing the anti-illegal-immigrant Senate Bill 1070 in 2010, but it was gutted in federal court. Brewer's now considered "back on her meds" by the leftie Wonkette blog. Sheriff Joe Arpaio's near-pogrom against undocumented residents has been reined in, mostly. He'll soon be appointed a federal monitor following the loss of a racial-profiling lawsuit and accusations by the U.S. Department of Justice that he led a police force that discriminated systemically against Hispanics. The U.S Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's voter-backed Proposition 200, which required people to show identification before filling out federal voter-registration forms. (The state's trying to get around that one by setting up two election booths, one for state and local issues and politicians, and a separate one for the non-ID-requiring feds.)

Now it's been ordered that another longtime staple of anti-immigrant fervor, the no-bail provision, is getting another look -- this time from the larger en banc court. New Times can tell you from experience that an en banc re-hearing might bode well for the appealing party. In June 2011, a three-member panel voted 2-1 in the case of New Times versus Sheriff Arpaio and Andrew Thomas that Arpaio and Thomas were immune from lawsuit in their capacity as public officials. But the court reversed itself following an en banc review by an 11-judge court, leading to the December settlement of $3.75 million in the case to New Times co-founders Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin, who were the subjects of a false arrest.

So, this Proposition 100 review could be interesting.

Records show the Ninth Circuit plans to hold a re-hearing in the case sometime during the week of March 17, with a specific time and date to be announced.

The American Civil Liberties Union is representing two undocumented immigrants denied bail in the case, one arrested on suspicion of drug charges and other who was suspected of assault, kidnapping and aiding a criminal syndicate.

Illegal aliens deserve no bail. First they are here illegally and they
did a crime that landed in jail. Why would they be entitled to be
released??? ICE should be picking them up and sending them all back to
Mexico or where ever the fuck they came from.

like anything involving bail in Maricopa ever made any sense anyways.............anybody remember a recent bail set at $10,000 for someone who no only threatened lives, but also got into a alcohol fueled barricade type situation involving pointing a gun at cops?

@valleynative I completely disagree. The whole law was made as a xenophobic response to people who have brown skin and/or don't speak English. It's really just another sad attempt to demonize and punish minorities and the undocumented.

@danzigsdaddy Not to mention the Tempe cop who led his former colleagues on a high-speed chase, bailed himself out, then promptly led them on another alcohol-fueled high-speed chase. Whenever something like that happens, there should be an assistant county attorney waiting to say, "the people request remand, your honor." Just like on Law & Order.

@eric.nelson745 thats the one. (just the first chase is the one i am referring to...............no need to go into the 2nd chase, a different county addressed that bail, and did it correctly at a million bucks)

When I say that Joe may not be racist, I mean that I don't believe we know anything about what he really believes. Everything he does or says in public is calculated to get votes.

The word "racist" is abused as a weapon in the context of illegals. A racist hates all Hispanics. Most (but not all, unfortunately) of us who oppose illegal immigration have no problem with those whose families arrived legally. As a Valley native, throughout my entire life, many of my friends have always been Hispanic.

@valleynative@DonkeyHotay"All these people that come over, they could come with disease.
There's no control, no health checks or anything. They check fruits and
vegetables. How come they don't check people? No one talks about that!
They're all dirty." - Joe Arpaio

So you oppose ILLEGAL US CITIZENS as vehemently as you oppose undocumented residents?

And you support DENYING BAIL to U$ Citizens who are arrested abroad for visa / residency / unauthorized employment violations? ... like all those 1000s of US students who obtain ILLEGAL jobs to earn some $$ while traveling overseas on tourist visas?

I do oppose all illegals, regardless of race. I oppose all illegal aliens, whether they crossed legally and overstayed or crossed illegally (a distinction without a difference, since both suggest a flight risk). You're looking for bigotry where it doesn't exist, which, interestingly, is a form of bigotry in itself

@valleynative ... well bigot, there are Far More "Illegal Citizens" in the U$A than aliens -- documented or not -- so apply your purported "equal opposition" to them, you disingenuous piece of racist crap.

So you naturally refer to all US citizens who break laws -- including administrative, traffic and paperwork statutes -- as ILLEGAL RESIDENTS or ILLEGAL CITIZENS ... every fucking time you mention them, eh?

It's not manufactured to demonize anybody. The press uses the term "legal immigrants" all the time, so it's perfectly correct to call them "illegal immigrants", and it is the nature of language to shorten phrases of more than 4 syllables this way.

Just because the voters were fooled by Arizona's racist politicians doesn't mean the law isn't racist. Funny you use the term "illegals", a manufactured term that is used to demonize people of brown skin and the undocumented. I must say I'm not surprised coming from a neo-conservative such as yourself.

Law-abiding, perhaps, but not properly trained. Responsible gun owners and gun rights organizations prefer that all gun owners be properly trained, although training may not, under our Constitution, be required, any more than we can require voters to undergo any sort of training to exercise that right.

Every "crime" that has ever been committed in the
history of mankind is unique in its own right. The totality of ANY and
EVERY case should be gathered and referenced (even by you) before
deciding whether or not a bond is too steep, or, even better, that a
whole case is an injustice. Instead, you chose to gauge the bail on the
trumped up charges alone, without looking at the sum of all the evidence
and information regarding the case. Had you've done a small amount of
research before commenting, you would have realized that the case
shouldn't have been brought, and subsequently, that there shouldn't have
even been a bail. The whole debate regarding the trial's bond is voided
by the fact that there should have been no trial in the first place.
Cozz even disclosed to you that you had no clue what was going on, yet
you chose to mockingly dismiss his assertion. Is every bail that is set
in every case reasonable? And likewise, is everybody who is ever accused
of a crime guilty? I'm assuming that you're either a LEO or an ex-LEO,
and accordingly believe that every thing that the Righteous Noble Police
do is acceptable and okay.

You're not looking at this in the proper context. The original post tried to make the point that a large bail is unreasonable for shooting into a structure. In that context, the back-story plays no part at all in determining whether or not it was reasonable.

You're also underplaying the seriousness of an "accidental" discharge. Under Arizona law, that can be charged as a felony.

@ValleyNativeFor
the same reason I brought up in my previous post(s) - because the whole
case was a sham in the first place! He shouldn't have even been
charged. Why should Cozz (or anybody for that matter) have to explain
(even to you) why his bail was set too high considering the whole case
hinged on bogus, trumped up charges that were brought against him by
corrupt public officials (Joe Arpaio to be exact)? There should have
been NO bail, NO charges, NO case, and he should have been released immediately, for free. Is that
not, in and of itself, proof that the bail was set too high?
Furthermore, when you read the article that Cozz posted and realized
that you didn't know what you were talking about, you blamed Cozz for
being arrogant and not providing you with enough information (even
though he was a victim) instead of finding out the facts for yourself
and forming an informed opinion before spouting off. You should know
better than anyone that ignorance of the facts is not an excuse.

@squash@valleynative@DonkeyHotayJust to clarify: I didn't support George Zimmerman getting off. I thought he should have been charged. I'm just trying to figure out VN's standpoint because it seems a little conflicted to me.

@valleynative Sorry I assumed that your were talking about the court. That said, why should he have to explain to you why his bail was too high? You had no control whatsoever on the outcome of the case. Who cares what your opinion of the bail was/is.

From what I read, Cozz was attempting to protect a women from being beaten (possible to death) by a large male. The gun accidentally discharged and no one was hurt. If he really was trying to protect a women from possible death, why do you support such a high bail? That's a far cry from your absolute support of George Zimmerman, who KILLED the "aggressor" in his case. If GZ's killing of TM was justified, wouldn't it stand to reason that Cozz's intervention, which didn't even kill anybody, was justified? If your answer is yes, again, I'm a bit confused as to why you would support such a high bail in Cozz's case.

How incredibly arrogant to believe that everybody in the valley knows or cares about your personal problems. Anybody who walks around with his finger on a trigger and so can accidentally fire a shot through a door is a risk to society. The bail was reasonable.

@valleynative Cozz was a victim of political retribution at the hands of Joe Arpaio and his goons. How is it his fault that he failed to provide info that would prove he wasn't dangerous? The whole case was an injustice in the first place. Way to blame the victim, VN.

How much more do we need to know than that you somehow managed to fire a deadly weapon into a building with a door, which fortunately wasn't occupied at the time. That's enough to know that you should be considered dangerous to the public until there's solid reason to believe otherwise.

You raised the point as if it was clearly unreasonable to treat you as if you were dangerous. If there was information that would support that interpretation, you failed to provide it.